'Bold' negotiation: Power lines create $66M in losses for park

Monday

Jun 10, 2013 at 12:01 AMJun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Two utilities initially proposed approximately $30 million to $40 million as compensation for the unavoidable environmental impacts of placing higher towers and more powerful electrical lines across Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

DAVID PIERCE

Two utilities initially proposed approximately $30 million to $40 million as compensation for the unavoidable environmental impacts of placing higher towers and more powerful electrical lines across Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

A National Park Service consultant placed the "total quantified human use and ecological losses" for the line crossing near Bushkill — including an expanded right of way — at about $89 million.

The parties ultimately agreed to a $66 million package to be used by the NPS to acquire thousands of acres contiguous to the park as compensatory mitigation for the power line upgrade.

Private conservation groups and "state and local resource agencies" were involved in the multi-year effort to finalize the agreement that cemented NPS approval last fall for the power line, PPL Electric Utilities and PSE&G say in court papers filed last month.

The Park Service and utilities insist, however, that the mitigation payment isn't a payoff for the power line approval.

The amount is tied to a calculation of the negative impacts of the selected route, after considering alternative line crossings through or around the two-state park, they insist.

An environmental coalition — including the Sierra Club — is trying to overturn the approval in U.S. District Court. Those groups contend compensation payment is a quid pro quo for the power line upgrade.

Whatever the case, the compensation negotiations were excruciating.

The utilities proposed a mitigation strategy to the NPS in August 2010 that called for engaging third-party nonprofit conservation groups in acquiring and conserving land and resources in and around the park.

"The companies' representatives discussed the proposal with park Superintendent John Donahue and his staff and representatives from The Nature Conservancy at a meeting on Oct. 22, 2010," the utilities wrote. "Park Service staff described the strategy at the time as 'a bold and far-sighted proposal that for the first time harnesses resources from a major project proponent to enhance environmental protection in and around the (park).'"

The Nature Conservancy was invited by the Park Service to reinforce previous testimony that any compensation should be a last resort, only if impacts are unavoidable, and only if purchased properties represent a whole ecosystem, local Nature Conservancy Director Bud Cook said.

"It should be comprehensive," Cook said. "It should not be piecemeal or haphazard."

The Park Service hesitated to name an expected compensation amount because no preferred route had been selected and possible impacts were still being studied, the utilities insisted.

"Another problem was uncertainty about which party should first attempt to quantify the impacts," power companies' attorneys wrote.

PPL said it presented a concept to the Park Service in June 2011 for methodologies to determine the amount and types of preserved properties as compensation.

The Park Service would use GIS modeling performed on potential areas of "potential visual impact" to park visitors caused by higher towers in the pre-existing right of way.

The Park Service replied it was "at an impasse" as to whether it or the utilities should define how the impacts would be "ameliorated in a quantitative fashion," the utilities said.

"A July 18, 2011, internal Park Service memorandum disclosed that staff was reluctant to make the first offer regarding compensatory mitigation because doing so could 'serve as a ceiling from which the applicant could depart downward,'" attorneys added.

The companies had a direct meeting with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazer in August 2011.

"Talking points" for Associate Director Bert Frost included conveying that the companies "need to get serious" about discussing mitigation/compensation with NPS.

Frost also was to tell utility executives "we are talking about nationally significant resources ... so we need to get into the right ballpark to have an appropriate discussion."

Park Superintendent Donahue issued an internal email placing a preliminary compensation figure at $65 million, subject to future analyses. Salazar told the companies the Park Service was expecting about $60 million, according to notes of an NPS staffer who was briefed on the meeting.

"The Aug. 4 meeting thus established a basic understanding regarding the magnitude of the compensatory mitigation that would be required if (attorneys' emphasis) the Park Service were to issue the permits for the project, but it did not end the process," the utilities said.

The parties continued to refine the proposal during the next 14 months.

The public didn't learn of any compensation proposal for five months following the Salazar meeting, when the companies announced it just prior to January 2012 hearings on the Park Service's draft environmental impact statement.

PPL initially said the compensation fund would be about $30 million, then upped the estimate to $36.5 million.

An NPS contractor prepared an analysis last July placing park losses from the upgraded power line at about $89 million.

Compensation details — including land negotiations and acquisitions to be conducted by The Conservation Fund — didn't emerge until after public testimony had concluded in January 2012.

The environmental coalition suing the Park Service to overturn the power line decision contends the absence of compensation details in the final environmental impact statement last October violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Park Service says the environmental impacts of the project — but not the final compensation amount and details of future land purchases — were required to be part of NEPA.

Four conditional land purchases using mitigation money — two in Monroe County, one in Pike County and one in Sussex County, N.J. — were announced in January.

It includes about 300 acres in all, for a combined $1.3 million.

Thousands of additional acres could be added to the park in coming years, in addition to new facilities inside the current park boundaries.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.